RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ANIMAL TORT AND INSURANCE LAW

"236 Siding for the insurer, the trial court found that the bite Maddox sustained, the second bite, was subject to the first "occurrence," but the appellate court reversed.237 It found that the policy's definition of "occurrence" was susceptible to two reasonable interp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inTort trial & insurance practice law journal Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 27 - 51
Main Authors Karp, Adam P., Fershtman, Julie I.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section, American Bar Association 22.09.2013
American Bar Association
Subjects
Animal law
Defendants
Evaluation
Federal court decisions
Homeowners insurance
Horses
Insurance claims
Insurance policies
Laws, regulations and rules
Liability insurance
Plaintiffs
State court decisions
Statutory law
Tort law
Torts
Workers compensation
Workers compensation insurance
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:"236 Siding for the insurer, the trial court found that the bite Maddox sustained, the second bite, was subject to the first "occurrence," but the appellate court reversed.237 It found that the policy's definition of "occurrence" was susceptible to two reasonable interpretations and, as such, should be construed in the insured's favor.238 Accordingly, it held that "the immediate injury-producing acts were the dog bites, and the dog bite that inflicted the injuries to Maddox was not the same dog bite that inflicted the injuries to [her son]. [...]each dog bite was a separate occurrence.
ISSN:1543-3234
1943-118X